Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

Credit: Shutterstock. All rights reserved.

“The Dark Age of religion is fading away, 'thank God'.”
“Your bible has no place in modern society.”

It’s not an easy time to be a
religious conservative. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (Mormon) myself, I once asked a neighbor disgusted by religion: “Are you
open to the existence of any kind of
religious faith that actually benefits or uplifts people?”

“Nope,” he replied—end of story. An
analysis of online comments following the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold gay marriage shows he is not alone:

“The fact that people like you [religious conservatives]
believe that they have some kind of superiority and greater insight into the
human condition is repugnant.”

"Your radical rantings are [like] the Taliban with
their extremist views."

What is it about religion that
drives some people nuts? Does religion (especially the conservative variety) have to elicit these kinds of reactions,
or are there times when it can offer profound benefits to individuals and
society?

Answering such questions depends, first
of all, on how ‘benefits’ are defined. I focused my PhD research on exploring conflicting
views of the benefits of anti-depressants. In the debate concerning whether such
drugs are effective or not, there has been surprisingly little attention paid
to what exactly is meant
by the 'success' or 'effectiveness' of treatment.

Likewise, in all the debate about religion and its influence
in the world, there is less exploration of what kinds of benefits or societal progress
we agree (or disagree) are valuable in the first place: what kind of changes do we want to see? What kind of
community should we build together?

On these questions, the
differences couldn't be more profound—nor the commonalities more intriguing. In
a study Nathan Todd and I published in the Journal of Public
Deliberation, we found striking
differences between U.S. citizens on whether the preservation of
Judeo-Christian tradition was seen as a net positive or negative in terms of
societal progress. While conservative-leaning citizens typically saw maintaining
traditional religious institutions as key, liberal-leaning citizens often saw
an unsettling of these same traditions as crucial for change.

What a difference! The very
message that millions of Christians proclaim to the world as ‘salvation’ is experienced
by others as a singular detriment to society's progress. As a liberal interviewee
said to his conservative counterpoint in the documentary Purple
State of Mind, "Christianity was
liberation for you. For me it was slavery.”

No wonder that secular and
religious people often take up different socio-political issues with such a
contrast in emphasis and intensity. For example, while I'm concerned with racism
and think we should work to end it, I've always been struck by the fact that my
liberal friends see racism as one of the
greatest threats facing society.

Why the difference? Am I just
harboring some hidden bigotry in my heart, or might we simply be holding
different narratives of the fundamental dangers that face our communities?

I also value taking care of the
planet, but with nowhere near the same passion as those who see climate change
as an unquestioned catastrophe at hand. When this subject has come up in past conversation,
I admit having often felt a bit defensive—sensing pressure not only to help
take care of the planet, but to adopt a new ‘end-times’ narrative.

As much as I agree with the value
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, this issue will likely never eclipse for
me (or most other religious conservatives) what we see as greater threats to
humanity—especially a kind of ‘social climate change’ that we see as incubating
an atmosphere increasingly toxic to sustainable human relationships.

One example is the ubiquity of pornography
and the many ways we are finding this kind of media "kills love," as one organization puts it. But this cultural toxicity goes beyond any particular
behavior to a deeper dynamic at play: namely, where we are being persuaded to
"set
our hearts."

Let me explain. ‘Worship’ is often
derided as something that crazy religious people do. On some level, however, I would argue every
one of us adores something, trusts something—and literally worships something.

For religious people that happens
to be God. If not the divine, however, then take your pick: Power? Money? Science? Reason? Food? Sports? Sex
itself?

Each of these things will lead to
a particular way of being and a certain kind of life. Whatever the details, compared
to the generous, spacious, other-oriented kind of life that all great spiritual
and religious communities aspire to, masses of humanity are being ushered into
a narrow, narcissistic, self-absorbed life along other pathways of socialization.

For religious conservatives, this is the great ‘catastrophe at hand’—the
collective imprint on human hearts and lives from the emergence of a new
'kingdom' in direct competition with the one envisioned in the Judeo-Christian
tradition. These competing 'kingdoms' invite people to work towards very
different worlds, socially, politically and religiously—worlds that on some
level are mutually incompatible. In the
words of a progressive Christian friend, these worlds are involved in a
"fight to the death."

Ultimately, I think he's right: one
'kingdom' will win out in the end, many years into the future. But in the meantime,
fighting isn't the only option. I'm convinced that we've got a lot to learn and
figure out together, and I'm optimistic about the possibilities in that regard.

For example, after spending more
time listening to progressive friends, I've come to a place of greater empathy
and interest regarding climate change. I haven’t altered my larger narrative of
the world, but from seeing the depth of their concern, I’m more moved to action.
After all, if they’re my friends, shouldn't I care about what they fear?

Could this kind of motivation
bring more conservatives to support additional efforts to take care of the
planet, without asking them to check their worldview at the door?

This kind of empathy seems to be
in short supply these days. As one online
commenter on the Supreme Court decision wrote:

“If conservatives were truly
interested in the impact things have on the lives of men and women, they might
be more inclined to work toward universal health care, reducing income
disparity, making education affordable, and ensuring that jobs with livable
wages were created in this country rather than shipped abroad...Of course
[these conservatives] are not concerned with our happiness."

What if we stopped questioning the
hearts and motives of our political opposites simply because their actions don’t
conform to our own narratives? What if we
stopped trying to foist a new worldview on each other, and instead found places
where our passions and fears overlapped?

Despite some gaping differences, there
are some powerful things on which we might agree. And some of these overlapping
understandings might also make for a more generous acknowledgment of religion's
place in social progress.

For example, don't most people want
family relationships that last? And aren't lots of people from all backgrounds
struggling to create and sustain these relationships?

While explanations of family break-down vary widely, different
groups might agree that it's not easy to be a loyal partner or parent in this
world. There's also a general concurrence that children are often the primary
victims, swept away into many kinds of toxic trajectories as a result of fractured
families.

Indeed, absent a compelling
parental presence, the omnipresent 24-7 multi-media spectacle is happy to step
in, providing children with its own kind of teaching in what the therapist Mary
Pipher once called a kind of
"corporate colonialism."

In this sense,
particularly for families who are trying to counter-balance this relentless
media socialization, a religious community that provides structure, support and
a richness of teaching can be a veritable God-send.
That, at least, has been my experience.

Length and
quality of life may provide another point of convergence. In 2008, a 25-year UCLA epidemiological study found that active members of my own religious faith had the lowest death rates and the longest life
expectancies “ever documented in a well-defined U.S. cohort”—at age 86 for
women and 84 for men (6-10 years longer than the U.S. average). Other research
has found a similar correlation between health, longevity and attendance at church services.

Before writing
these correlations off as statistical quirks or figments of power and class,
note that the UCLA analysis centered around four lifestyle patterns common to
Mormonism: weekly worship, marriage,
avoiding tobacco and extended education. The authors also pointed out that “The
more strictly and constantly Mormons followed Mormon lifestyle elements, the
longer they live.”

If a drug were discovered that
increased life expectancy by 6-10 years, how many people would be taking
it?

Don't worry. We won't take this as
another excuse to knock on your door. Most religious conservatives I know aren’tinterested in dominating the government
or "shoving righteousness down your throats," as another commenter on
the Supreme Court ruling wrote.

You know what we really want? To be welcomed as part of an ongoing conversation
about the nature of the ‘good society’—and how to get there.

Don't push us out, or assume we
will eventually be ‘enlightened’ out of our convictions.

Instead, let's talk. It's true that our deepest differences may
not disappear with more dialogue. But maybe other things will: fear, disgust,
anger?

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.